Home Insurers that allow three policy holders

Quentin

The issue for you is that your Mum has no financial interest in the building, so cannot be a joint policy holder for the building insurance.

vaio

as the mother is allowed to live there rent free surely she has an insurable interest which she can protect?

I think the OPs problem is more that the cheap end of the market is script driven/inflexible and assumes there will only ever be the need for two policy holders

dacouch

vaio wrote: »

as the mother is allowed to live there rent free surely she has an insurable interest which she can protect.

I think the OPs problem is more that the cheap end of the market is script driven/inflexible and assumes there will only ever be the need for two policy holders

The policyholders of the Buildings would be people with an interest in it eg whoever is on the mortgage etc. The mother has no insurable interest, if she was a policyholder on the buildings it's the type of thing that will quickly be discovered on most claims over £1000. The Insurers would then normally instigate a non disclosure investigation.

If the buildings was with an Insurer such as Saga that only accept policyholders over a certain age, it could potentially result in the policy being voided

vaio

i thought insurable interest covers things other than ownership and includes loss or loss of benefit.

http://www.residentsline.co.uk/information/your-guide-to-insurance-terms/

INSURABLE INTEREST For an insurance contract to be valid the Policyholder must have an interest in the insured item to the extent that its death, damage or destruction would cause him loss, both at the time the policy is effected and also at the time of the loss.

also http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/ICL4_Insurable_Interest.pdf

dacouch

vaio wrote: »

i thought insurable interest covers things other than ownership and includes loss or loss of benefit.

http://www.residentsline.co.uk/information/your-guide-to-insurance-terms/

INSURABLE INTEREST For an insurance contract to be valid the Policyholder must have an interest in the insured item to the extent that its death, damage or destruction would cause him loss, both at the time the policy is effected and also at the time of the loss.

also http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/ICL4_Insurable_Interest.pdf

If the property was for instance burnt down, she would not suffer a loss as the property does no belong to her. With regard to loss of benefit, the building insurers include costs of additional accomadation for policyholders and insured persons eg family living with them. So the Insurers would pay to rent out a suitable rental property while the claim is dealt with.

It really is not a good idea they have the mum as a policyholder on the buildings cover.

vaio

maybe I'm missing something but as she does have an insurable interest there must be some other reason you think it's a bad idea.

also, from the law commission link, it appears that following the Gambling Act in 2005, insurable interest is no longer required in indemnity policies

2.18 ..........Under the Gambling Act 2005, contracts by way of gaming or wagering are now enforceable. As a result, the need for any formal distinction between indemnity insurance and wagering agreements for the purposes of enforceability has disappeared. As we shall see later, it appears that for the purposes of enforceability at least, insurable
interest is no longer necessary in non-marine indemnity insurance in England and Wales, although it remains a common law requirement in Scotland......

izools

You've certainly raised some interesting points so thanks everyone for your input, appreciated

I think I'll do the sensible thing and just call home protect to ask about the buildings cover / insurable interest.